I can’t agree with this more: “You’re ruining Facebook (and friendships) with political rants.” I think social media like Facebook needs to be regarded as if it were an ongoing dinner party. It’s good to catch up and stay familiar with friends and family, but no one like the boor who rants constantly about politics at a dinner party. In my social media circles, who are mostly friends and family, the Baby Boomer generation are the worst about this.

13 Responses to “Weekly Gun News – Edition 49”

I think social media like Facebook needs to be regarded as if it were an ongoing dinner party. It’s good to catch up and stay familiar with friends and family, but no one like the boor who rants constantly about politics at a dinner party.

Yep. If people want to be stupid, rude, and boorish, well … that’s what Twitter is for.

If Facebook is the dinner party conversation, then Twitter is the T-shirt slogans they wear and the bumper stickers on the cars they drive. The venue itself is not conducive to intelligent discourse so much as drive-by sniping.

Though I’m probably a baby boomer you are talking about (though I really consider myself “Generation Jones”) I agree that facebook is for connecting not preaching.

But that said … you can’t have a conversation during the silly season without politics coming up, so it’s only natural it would pop up on FB as well. I think social media is actually better this year — I get hammered with one “this is a game changer” or “such and such was just destroyed with this one video” posts, but individuals rarely share them anymore (with a few exceptions).

The biggest problem with FB is that few of us use filters. I’m careful not to post anything outright hateful, but I do respond to people and I do post an occasional thing I think is pertinent.

That said … I have unfriended/unfollowed many people in the last couple of months because I got tired of seeing their idiotic rants (vs. non-idiotic rants even if I don’t agree with them). An “unfriend” in FB world is not the same as an unfriend in the real world, as I always tell people.

I’m technically a few weeks too old to be a Baby Boomer, but maybe that’s why I don’t get “social media” at all.

What’s it for other than to lay your business in the street, whether people want to hear it or not?

But if some Baby Boomers seem pretty bad at keeping their opinions to themselves, maybe it has something to do with biting their tongues for a whole bunch of decades of suffering the fools around them. Shit just builds up!

The trials in Minnesota are starting up again. The city of Savage, just south of Minneapolis, had a resolution before the city council to rezone anything having to do with guns out of the city. It was defeated (actually was never taken up for a vote) because of active pressure from people and MNGOPAC. The city of Bloomington, between Savage and Minneapolis, is trying to do the same thing. The graboids snuck a resolution into the next council meeting in November. I expect the enemy to try the same in my suburb soon.

I don’t think SCOTUS can actually reverse Heller and McDonald. At best, they can try to neuter them by coming up with excuses why it doesn’t apply in this case or that, but if they try a full reversal it will call into question *ALL* SC decisions. It would shred stare decisis as a doctrine, and that means all it would take to, say, reverse Roe v. Wade is the right balance on the court. I don’t see them opening that can of worms.

You bring up some very good points. Interesting enough, Pro-Choice advocates were hysterical in the 1980s after a “conservative” supreme court majority took hold- fearing that Roe V Wade was going to be overturned. 30 years later it’s still there. The same can be said for Heller probably. Quick thing to note, Breyer didn’t actually advocate reversing the decision, he seemed to merely point out that he thought it was incorrect. This is nothing “shocking”- ofcourse judges on the the dissenting side will say they believe the majority opinion was wrong. But back to your main point, Stare Decisis. I am no lawyer but from what I have read and been told, in general SCOTUS does not like to overturn itself because of what you essentially stated- it would call into question All the courts decisions and their impartiality. It would essentially overtly make the court seem political (yes, the court is political in a way but does try to maintain impartiality to the best of its ability). It would open a huge can of worms. From what I’ve read regarding the issue of stare decisis, in general, the court will only overturn a previous decision if there is an apparent major permanent shift in public opinion and/or that the current ruling has been found to be “unworkable”. I don’t believe Heller fits any of those categories.

North Carolina’s Permit to Purchase Law: The Rumble Seat of Gun Control Laws?

Abstract:
North Carolina’s permit to purchase law (P2P) law requires permission from the sheriff to purchase a handgun after he has decided the applicant is of “good moral character” and may lawfully possess a pistol. The P2P law is an historical leftover from a different era, adopted for perhaps racist reasons, and to help enforce a restrictive concealed carry statute that is no longer part of North Carolina law.

“Notice when forums are put together to discuss things like guns as a public health issue, experts from our side are never invited?”

Yeah, I’ve noticed it. But it isn’t just guns. It’s everything.

With Common Core, for example, they only had a mathematician or two on the committee to create the thing, and they left because they didn’t like the direction the math portion went.

With ObamaCare specifically, and Health Care in general, whenever they create a committee, they always seem to leave out insurance people. You’d think it would be useful to consult an actuary or two on how useful their proposals are, right? After all, they have to go through *intense* training to do all that insurance stuff.

It’s as if our Elected and Appointed Officials think they know better than these “experts” — after all, they represent the Will of the People, and aren’t just idiots who just barely managed to out-maneuver the other idiots vying for votes and money — so they don’t need to consult people who actually know what they’re talking about, do they?